Letters, Week of Nov. 26, 2015

My image and the name and slogan of my LES FUN Gallery are also utilized in the mural at the new Mr. Purple restaurant without my permission or knowledge. “FUN for Everyone?” I think not. Fun for anyone who can spend $15 on a cocktail. I am outraged at this blatant commercialization of Adam Purple, who I saw all the time and who was a tremendous inspiration to me.

This outrage may even “Trump” the $64 “Basquiat Burger,” at the new PYT on the Bowery, against which I also spoke out and led a campaign against on Yelp until they censored all of our comments.

Vague promises of “but you are getting recognition and they can sell your book” don’t cut it. No way in hell would I put my book in there until that bar gives back to the community.Patti AstorAstor is owner, FUN Gallery

I’m not sure what Mayor de Blasio meant by saying, “Stay true to your values.” I hope it is not meant as a warning to protect against dictatorial impulses.

As we were on 9/11, the French are the victims here. The threat to their values — and their lives — comes from the terrorists.

Resolution has to mean more than sticking to your lifestyle. Here it must mean destroying the ideology that feeds these attacks. That is how we best honor the victims.

And why close the article with meaningless gibberish from, literally, a clown — Reverend Billy?Michael Burke

Berman: I was misquoted

To The Editor:Re “Architect and developer try to build the case for St. John’s project” (news article, Nov. 19):

I was disappointed to see myself so drastically misquoted in this article regarding the proposed zoning changes and development for the Pier 40 and St. John’s Terminal sites.

First, regarding funding for Pier 40, I did not say the developer should simply “give” the money to the park instead of paying for air rights. While that would be nice, it’s not what I would expect or suggest that this or any other developer do. What I did say — and what several dozen community groups have been saying for more than two years since the state Legislature passed legislation allowing the transfer of air rights from the park to increase the allowable size of development in our neighborhood — is that alternative mechanisms for funding the park from nearby development should be explored, especially those that do not involve upzoning or increasing the size of allowable development.

The specific example I cited was placing a dedicated tax on new development adjacent to the park that would go directly toward funding the park, as has been successfully done in places like Hudson Yards and Battery Park City. This would mean that new development around the park would financially support the park, but not make the funding a function of increases in the allowable size and scale of development, but simply upon the development that current zoning allows.

The quote attributed to me that for the Pier 40/St. John’s development to proceed at this point was “crazy” is somewhat removed from its original context and might leave the reader with a false impression. What I pointed out was that the Hudson River Park Trust and the city had still not provided complete or accurate figures about how many air rights there are at Pier 40 or in the remainder of the park that could potentially still be used after this process is over. What I said was “crazy” was that such information had still not been provided, and that this process should not and could not proceed in a meaningful and appropriate way without it.

The Pier 40/St. John’s development proposal being put forward by the city and St. John’s Partners will benefit this developer incredibly handsomely. The benefit to the public, and the tremendous potential impact this nearly 2-million-square-foot development would have, is less clear. This does appear to be another case of the city moving ahead to accommodate a developer’s plans, while community-initiated rezoning plans for nearby areas that would protect neighborhood character are being stonewalled. Both raise basic issues of equity and fairness that must be addressed as this process moves forward.Andrew BermanBerman is executive director, Greenwich Village Society for Historic PreservationEditor’s Note: The Villager stands by its reporting.

375 more students

To The Editor:Re “Architect and developer try to build the case for St. John’s project” (news article, Nov. 19):

O.K., so 1,500 residential units in the St. John’s Partners project then projects out to how many elementary school seats?

Ballpark numbers: 1,500 units…3,000 residents? And 375 kids (at a ratio of 1 to 8 adults, roughly the New York City overall ratio)…divided by 18 years…is about 21 kids per cohort.

So in loosey-goosey terms, this project would need one classroom per grade. Last I checked, P.S. 3 and P.S. 41 didn’t have that to give. Should we check P.S. 234? (Insert wink emoticon.)

It’s not very satisfying when developers each say, “I’m not that big,” when collectively, they place a huge load on local infrastructure.

At this point, in return for a school floor, I’d be willing to toss in another “X” feet of height on this project.

And, finally, regarding the still-undefined commercial site at this project’s south end: Hotel? Hospital. Hotel? Hospital. Which one does the Village really need more?Michael MarkowitzMarkowitz is a former member, Community Education Council District 2

Was the fix in?

To The Editor:Re “Architect and developer try to build the case for St. John’s project” (news article, Nov. 19):

The 2013 amendment to the Hudson River Park Act that allows the transfer of Pier 40 air rights to the inboard properties allows the Trust “to transfer by sale any unused development rights as may be available for transfer to properties located up to one block east of the boundaries of the park along the west side of Manhattan.”

Why is the assumption that all the air rights should be transferred to the St. John’s Building? Shouldn’t the Trust be putting out an R.F.P. [request for proposals] to all property owners within one block of the park between Chambers and W. 59th Sts. to get the highest return for the air rights, so as to possibly spread the density along the border of the entire park?Tom Fox

Westway déjà vu

To The Editor:Re “Architect and developer try to build the case for St. John’s project” (news article, Nov. 19):

It has always begged the question: Why the rush to, and laserlike focus on, this particular deal without regard to bid or competition? Just because it was available? It’s been years since this began being discussed — plenty of time for competitive bidding.

There are still questions about how many total square feet of unused development rights are available parkwide and what process will be used to legitimately and transparently determine the value of this public space. Instead, the community is getting a shell game.

This 2013 amendment to the Hudson River Park Act allowing the park to sell its unused development rights to sites outside the park stands to undo everything that the folks who fought Westway stood for. This is just the beginning.

This out-of-scale development will be able to be located anywhere within one block of the park from Chambers to 59th Sts. That’s Westway minus 100 feet, give or take. Hardly a victory. In fact, it’s a repudiation of that previous generation’s efforts.

This was not how to save Pier 40. The Village, and the entire West Side along the park, will soon come to regret inaction on preventing Assembly Bill A8031 from becoming law. This all could have, and should have, been contained to the pier.

Now the Pandora’s box has been opened.Patrick Shields

Buses, N.Y.U. keep rolling

To The Editor:Re “Pols put on a push to cap number of tour buses at 225 licenses” (news article, Nov. 19):

That’s about 25 buses an hour, isn’t it?

After Margaret Chin handled the N.Y.U. growth cancer so well, do we really want her handling public transportation on our clogged roadways, too? What a friend to the Village! Not.

Follow the money! Semper Fi-nancials! All of this is stealth eminent domain. The city sees no other way to maintain an income than by turning over residential qualities, etc., to proven moneymakers for the city, mainly N.Y.U. and other schools in our neighborhood.

Funny how they think they own the right to drive us out of the Village’s “community facility space” for what they believe to be a moneymaking improvement for them.

Semper Fi-nancials!Diane Whelton

Must do better on buses

To The Editor:Re “Pols put on a push to cap number of tour buses at 225 licenses” (news article, Nov. 19):

The cap should be much lower. These tourist buses are an enormous nuisance, taking up traffic lanes and parking throughout Manhattan, but particularly crowding our narrow Village streets. Mrs. Chin’s efforts never seem to favor our community. Mrs. Brewer should know better.

When we’ve asked for the return of the M5 route that was deleted — i.e. turning on Houston St. — Mrs. Chin has been and remains deaf to our needs. Our community’s public bus transportation is extremely lacking while these tour buses own our streets. Time for the politicians to listen to our community!Sylvia RackowRackow is chairperson, M5 Bus Committee

E-mail letters, not longer than 250 words in length, to news@thevillager.com or fax to 212-229-2790 or mail to The Villager, Letters to the Editor, 1 Metrotech North, 10th floor, Brooklyn, NY, NY 11201. Please include phone number for confirmation purposes. The Villager reserves the right to edit letters for space, grammar, clarity and libel. Anonymous letters will not be published.

Advertisers from our print edition

Comments are often moderated.

We appreciate your comments and ask that you keep to the subject at hand, refrain from use of profanity and maintain a respectful tone to both the subject at hand and other readers who also post here. We reserve the right to delete your comment.